Infallible Word of God?

[Revmitchell]

1. Let me look up "Open Theism", I'm not familiar with it. I'll get back with you on that.
2. The scripture has numerous references where God changed his mind or was willing to (Numbers 14:11-23, Genesis 18:22-23). God explicitly stated that prophecies of judgment were always conditional (Jeremiah 18:7-10). Paraphrasing Greg Matte of Houston's First Baptist: The defining characteristic of God is not immutability or omniscience; the angels around his throne do not cry out, "Omniscient, omniscient, omniscient!" God's defining characteristic is holiness...and if you can propose a course of action which is more holy than the one he has in mind he will either listen patiently and then let you know why and how you are wrong...or else adopt it and say, "Thank you." If God was unwilling to listen and improve his plan then we might just as well worship a God of wood or stone.
3. God was not omniscient in the early "layers" of the process. He has been surprised quite a few times, both unpleasantly and pleasantly. However, in the final analysis he does absolutely and completely overcome evil and the evil one and attain to total omniscience of the past, present, and what we call the future (which is to him the zone of time in which it may still be possible to make changes and improvements). And, since he is indeed a being outside of time, that omniscience and omnipotence touches and reshapes all of linear time from infinity past to infinity future.

complete heresy

 

[ehbowen]

Here is a "what if"...

What if after several "sequences" of events concerning the worlds rejection of Jesus Christ God determines that He made a "mistake" in having sent His son Jesus Christ to redeem mankind and now decides to take responsibility for it, make restitution for it, learn from it, and never repeat it again, He then empties heaven of the "saved" shuts down the Gospel never again to save anyone and further destroys the earth and all its inhabitants?

This seems entirely possible using your definition of a "mistake".

Actually, that's quite close to what happened back in the days of Noah. The difference now is that no one with the capability to make a change in the sequence of events (which includes God, Satan, and possibly a very few of the elite angels) sees any way to improve the ultimate outcome of events by changing those. Which means that we see them as being in the past; immutable. The future, on the other hand, is the zone in which it is possible to propose and make improvements for the benefit of all. What we see as this present moment is where our choices are made and affirmed...our "final answer", as it were.

The reason the past cannot be changed is because, at least from a sufficient distance into the future, there is no one who wants to change it.

 

[ehbowen]

The question has been asked of you, and I hope you will answer: do you hold to open theism?

All right, I just now looked up and read the Wikipedia article on Open Theism including its comparison table against Reform Theology. They do have a few points, although I can't agree with them completely.

The thing is, though, in my own personal understanding, both the Reformed and Open theologies eventually converge from a viewpoint sufficiently far into the future. So I'm not going to say one's "right" and the other "wrong"...just that both need to be more complete.

 

[HankD]

Hmm ehbowen, your answers are incomplete. To mine you did not say you thought my proposition was possible.

 

[ehbowen]

Hmm ehbowen, your answers are incomplete. To mine you did not say you thought my proposition was possible.

I don't think that the proposition which you put forth was/is possible from THIS point in time, because it is now in the immutable past. However, while the events were still taking shape and finalizing, it is quite possible that the alternative you propose was explored...those undo and redo keys...until the Father determined that what we now know as the Incarnation was the best—indeed, the only—way forward.

A better example for your illustration would, in my mind, be the book of Revelation. This speaks of events which are, to us, still future. This implies that if someone can propose a way forward which is better, more righteous, and more holy then God will be willing to listen and act accordingly. And I believe that he is in fact doing so. I see the Revelation as being God's "worst case scenario"...it is what God was prepared to do and would have done if necessary. But scattered throughout the book you find the phrase, "...and men did not repent." Which means that, if men DO repent, God has every reason and justification to turn from the destruction he had planned.

I'm not saying it's certain. But I am saying that I do believe it is possible...and that I am conducting myself accordingly.

 

[HankD]

I don't think that the proposition which you put forth was/is possible from THIS point in time, because it is now in the immutable past. However, while the events were still taking shape and finalizing, it is quite possible that the alternative you propose was explored...those undo and redo keys...until the Father determined that what we now know as the Incarnation was the best—indeed, the only—way forward.

A better example for your illustration would, in my mind, be the book of Revelation. This speaks of events which are, to us, still future. This implies that if someone can propose a way forward which is better, more righteous, and more holy then God will be willing to listen and act accordingly. And I believe that he is in fact doing so. I see the Revelation as being God's "worst case scenario"...it is what God was prepared to do and would have done if necessary. But scattered throughout the book you find the phrase, "...and men did not repent." Which means that, if men DO repent, God has every reason and justification to turn from the destruction he had planned.

I'm not saying it's certain. But I am saying that I do believe it is possible...and that I am conducting myself accordingly.

I believe you are hedging. "immutable past" or "sequence of events"? They seem not to be compatible but used where they best suit the intended purpose.

"The reason the past cannot be changed is because, at least from a sufficient distance into the future, there is no one who wants to change it"
Not as far as I am concerned.

 

[ehbowen]

I believe you are hedging. "immutable past" or "sequence of events"? They seem not to be compatible but used where they best suit the intended purpose.

"The reason the past cannot be changed is because, at least from a sufficient distance into the future, there is no one who wants to change it"
Not as far as I am concerned.

But they are compatible; the difference is perspective. I want to take a hypothetical case, that of a grandfather who accidentally kills his young grandson by backing over him in the driveway. I'm going to ignore what was probably going on in the background, between guardian angels and demonic forces and etc., and focus in on the events from the grandfather's perspective.

1. The event happens. The grandfather is brokenhearted and desperately wishes that things could have been different...understandably so.
2. Time passes and the grandfather comes to the point where God is able...not to undo the foundational past, but to generate a new past in which, just before the accident, the grandfather realizes...gets a "flash" of...what is about to happen. He stops, and his grandson's life is spared (How many times have you gotten a flash of something at the last moment which averts a potentially disastrous outcome? It happens.). That timeline progresses along in parallel with the original, foundational one.
3. At some point in the far distant future (we're talking Kingdom of Heaven, here) it become possible to converge the two timelines. The grandfather has the memory of both pasts and is able to remember both what happened when the accident was averted at the last second and also the memory of the tragedy...but, if the tragedy was not averted and was allowed to happen originally, it means that God had a compelling reason for doing so; otherwise it would have been, "Boy, that was a close shave, wasn't it!" The grandfather will learn what that compelling reason was and exactly why God was moved to permit the tragedy to occur.

God wants to give us chances to demonstrate that we love and trust him in the here-and-now even when we don't understand what is going on. Remember the opening of the Book of Job...God didn't hate Job, he wasn't out to get Job; in point of fact he was singling him out as a shining example of what a man could and should be. When tragedy strikes our own lives it is very possible that such a scenario is playing out in the background whether we realize it or not.

 

[HankD]

But they are compatible; the difference is perspective. I want to take a hypothetical case, that of a grandfather who accidentally kills his young grandson by backing over him in the driveway. I'm going to ignore what was probably going on in the background, between guardian angels and demonic forces and etc., and focus in on the events from the grandfather's perspective.

1. The event happens. The grandfather is brokenhearted and desperately wishes that things could have been different...understandably so.
2. Time passes and the grandfather comes to the point where God is able...not to undo the foundational past, but to generate a new past in which, just before the accident, the grandfather realizes...gets a "flash" of...what is about to happen. He stops, and his grandson's life is spared (How many times have you gotten a flash of something at the last moment which averts a potentially disastrous outcome? It happens.). That timeline progresses along in parallel with the original, foundational one.
3. At some point in the far distant future (we're talking Kingdom of Heaven, here) it become possible to converge the two timelines. The grandfather has the memory of both pasts and is able to remember both what happened when the accident was averted at the last second and also the memory of the tragedy...but, if the tragedy was not averted and was allowed to happen originally, it means that God had a compelling reason for doing so; otherwise it would have been, "Boy, that was a close shave, wasn't it!" The grandfather will learn what that compelling reason was and exactly why God was moved to permit the tragedy to occur.

God wants to give us chances to demonstrate that we love and trust him in the here-and-now even when we don't understand what is going on. Remember the opening of the Book of Job...God didn't hate Job, he wasn't out to get Job; in point of fact he was singling him out as a shining example of what a man could and should be. When tragedy strikes our own lives it is very possible that such a scenario is playing out in the background whether we realize it or not.

Look ehbowen bro, we all (as far as i know) struggle to make sense of this "mystery" or "riddle" of life (whichever applies).
I went through both phases until faith came.

Now the faith umbrella comes in many colors and hues.There are probably as many permutations as there are believers so I respect your view and yes even your defense mechanisms (I have plenty of my own). I hope my criticisms don't sound judgmental of your persona. Your debating skills - maybe
your reasoning seems detached from reality and too complex for my weary brain.

Blessings to you and yours.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not believe in dualism. What I believe is quite complex and would take some length to fully explain. I'm not sure anyone here's really interested.

Would it be Open Theism?

 

[ehbowen]

Would it be Open Theism?

I really wasn't even aware of Open Theism until you brought it up yesterday. Suppose it is; does that automatically disqualify it?

I'd rather be right in God's eyes than be pure in the estimation of someone's theological camp.

 

[Yeshua1]

1. Let me look up "Open Theism", I'm not familiar with it. I'll get back with you on that.
2. The scripture has numerous references where God changed his mind or was willing to (Numbers 14:11-23, Genesis 18:22-23). God explicitly stated that prophecies of judgment were always conditional (Jeremiah 18:7-10). Paraphrasing Greg Matte of Houston's First Baptist: The defining characteristic of God is not immutability or omniscience; the angels around his throne do not cry out, "Omniscient, omniscient, omniscient!" God's defining characteristic is holiness...and if you can propose a course of action which is more holy than the one he has in mind he will either listen patiently and then let you know why and how you are wrong...or else adopt it and say, "Thank you." If God was unwilling to listen and improve his plan then we might just as well worship a God of wood or stone.
3. God was not omniscient in the early "layers" of the process. He has been surprised quite a few times, both unpleasantly and pleasantly. However, in the final analysis he does absolutely and completely overcome evil and the evil one and attain to total omniscience of the past, present, and what we call the future (which is to him the zone of time in which it may still be possible to make changes and improvements). And, since he is indeed a being outside of time, that omniscience and omnipotence touches and reshapes all of linear time from infinity past to infinity future.

Open Theism basically states that God has decided to become part of his creation now, and so while he knows all that can be known up to right now, he is part of the flow of time and history, so has self blinded Himself to actually know future, as he learns and adapts to it same process that we do!
Rank Heresy

 

[Yeshua1]

I really wasn't even aware of Open Theism until you brought it up yesterday. Suppose it is; does that automatically disqualify it?

I'd rather be right in God's eyes than be pure in the estimation of someone's theological camp.

Open theism describes a false god, not the God of the Bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

All right, I just now looked up and read the Wikipedia article on Open Theism including its comparison table against Reform Theology. They do have a few points, although I can't agree with them completely.

The thing is, though, in my own personal understanding, both the Reformed and Open theologies eventually converge from a viewpoint sufficiently far into the future. So I'm not going to say one's "right" and the other "wrong"...just that both need to be more complete.

if God needs to know anything else in order to make up His mind, that is a false god, and God could have intervened and changed to outcome of the Fall, but He chose to have it happen period!

 

[ehbowen]

if God needs to know anything else in order to make up His mind, that is a false god, and God could have intervened and changed to outcome of the Fall, but He chose to have it happen period!

Obviously you don't know God the way I know God.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Obviously you don't know God the way I know God.

Can you actually prove from the scriptures your “God” actually even exists? Your ideas are not from Gods word. You are a false teacher.

 

[ehbowen]

Can you actually prove from the scriptures your “God” actually even exists? Your ideas are not from Gods word. You are a false teacher.

Sure. Proverbs chapter 8.

Like I said earlier, she's cute.

 

[Yeshua1]

Obviously you don't know God the way I know God.

I know the real one, the One described to us in the scriptures!
Who was jesus?

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure. Proverbs chapter 8.

Like I said earlier, she's cute.

there is no "she" for God...
Who was jesus per you, how are we to be saved then?

 

[ehbowen]

there is no "she" for God...

Better be sure about that.

Who was jesus per you?

Her big brother.

how are we to be saved then?

We are saved through the atoning propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who is the One Way of salvation for ALL who have sinned. We surrender our lives to his authority and are adopted by his Father into his family. We demonstrate the validity and the purity of our decision by walking in the authority and keeping the commandments of Jesus in accordance with the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit indwells us and gives us the ability to do so, and convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment if we go astray.

 

[Yeshua1]

Better be sure about that.



Her big brother.



We are saved through the atoning propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who is the One Way of salvation for ALL who have sinned. We surrender our lives to his authority and are adopted by his Father into his family. We demonstrate the validity and the purity of our decision by walking in the authority and keeping the commandments of Jesus in accordance with the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit indwells us and gives us the ability to do so, and convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment if we go astray.

God is NEVER said to be female, Jesus knows God as His heavenly Father period, and so your definition of the person of God and how he/she is limited means that you know a false One!